JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. has prayed for an appropriate writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or prohibition to declare the impugned order dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure-C) passed by the Collector, Anand - respondent No.3 herein as illegal, null and void and consequently to quash and set aside the same. It is further prayed for an appropriate writ, direction, order by quashing and setting aside the impugned decision/action of the Collector, Anand dated 31.12.2014 increasing number of seats of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society. The petitioner has also further prayed for an appropriate writ, direction, order directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to hold and conduct the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society according to the electorate division by delimitation of the constituencies as per the communication of the petitioner Society at Annexure-B and the final list submitted thereof. 2.0. That the petitioner Society is a specified Society defined and falling under the provisions of Section 74C of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"]. That the petitioner Society is a registered cooperative Society and is a Federal Society. As averred in the petition the petitioner Society has its members as affiliated primary level milk producers cooperative societies throughout the revenue District of Kheda and Anand. The petitioner Society is also having individual members. That the petitioner Society has its own bye-laws approved by the Appropriate Authority under the Act. 2.1 That in exercise of the powers conferred upon the State Government under Section 168 read with Section 145G read with Sections 145U and 145Y, the Government of Gujarat has framed the Rules known as Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1982"]. These rules provide various stages of election from the stage of preparation of the voters list until the result is declared and further consequential steps are taken. However, in the year 1987, Rules 3A and 3B were inserted by Rule making authority which provided for delimitation of the constituencies for the purpose of election and a separate procedure for election of the members reserved in subsection (1) of section 74B. However, in the year 1987, Rules 3A and 3B were inserted by Rule making authority which provided for delimitation of the constituencies for the purpose of election and a separate procedure for election of the members reserved in subsection (1) of section 74B. That the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the Society other than the specified Societies are to be held as per the bye-laws of such Societies, whereas so far as the specified Societies covered under Section 74C(1) of the Act are concerned, the election is to be held as per Chapter XIA of the Act read with Rules, 1982. As observed herein above, the petitioner Society/Union is a specified Society covered by Section 74C(1) of the Act and therefore, election of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Union/Society is to be held as per Chapter XIA read with Rules, 1982. At this stage it is required to be noted that as per subsection (1A) of section 74 of the Act, the Managing Committee of a Society shall consist of such number of members as may be provided in the bye-laws but not exceeding 21 members. As per subsection (1B)(i) of Section 74 of the Act, there shall be reserved one seat for the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribes and two seats for women in the Managing Committee of every Society consisting of individuals as members and having members from such class or category of persons. As per subsection (1B)(ii) of the Act one seat may be reserved for the persons who are small farmers and marginal farmers. As per the bye-laws of the petitioner Union/Society the Board of Directors shall consist of 17 members out of which 12 representatives from 12 member Societies and out of the same two seats shall be reserved for women representatives; one member from amongst the elected delegates of the individual members; one nominee of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies; nominee(s) of the financing agency(s) upto two members till the time the Union is indebted to them i.e. one each from Kaira District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and National Dairy Development Board; one nominee of the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Federation Limited; and the Managing Director of the Union. That Rule 3A of the Rules, 1982 provides for delimitation of constituencies for the purpose of election. That Rule 3A of the Rules, 1982 provides for delimitation of constituencies for the purpose of election. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3A to Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 3A provide the procedure for preparing the list of constituencies/delimitation of the constituencies. Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 3A provides that where the area of operation of a Society is in more than one village, the number of constituencies shall be equal to the total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under sub-Section (1) of Section 74B of the Act. Sub-Rule (9) of the Rule 3A of the Rules, 1982 confers power upon the Collector for delimitation of the constituencies prior to the publication of the list of voters. 2.2 It appears that the election of the committee of the petitioner Society was last held in the year 2009 and the result thereof was declared and thereafter the first meeting of the petitioner Society to elect the officers of the Executive Committee as provided under the provisions of Section 145Z of the Act was held pursuant to the Agenda Notice on 28.08.2009. The term of the committee as provided under the provisions of Section 74C(2) of the Act is three years from the date of its first meeting and therefore, the term of the committee expired on 27.08.2012. However, because of various litigations before this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society could not be held. However, ultimately the litigation ended by judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.11.2014 by which the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.12067/2012 and other Special Civil Applications has been confirmed. Therefore, the process for the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society has begun. According to the petitioner Society, on 22.12.2014, it submitted the communication to the Prant Officer, District Collectorate, Anand for supplying the information and proposal in relation to the ensuing election of the Executive Committee of the petitioner Society together with the provisional list of constituencies, electorate divisions together with number of seats along with the copies of the bye-laws of the petitioner Society. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter again on 26.12.2014, the petitioner Society forwarded the proposal to the Collector. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter again on 26.12.2014, the petitioner Society forwarded the proposal to the Collector. That thereafter by impugned communication/decision dated 31.12.2014 and in purported exercise of powers under Rule 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982, Collector, Anand has delimited the constituencies and has also increased the number of seats of the Managing Committee from 12 to 20, to be elected over and above other nominated members as provided in bye-law No.16. It appears that impugned decision/order has been passed in purported exercise of the powers under the provisions of Section 145A and 145B(a) of the Act read with Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 by which 20 different electorate divisions are made per taluka and each division is directed to elect one seat. Thus, in exercise of powers under Rule 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 and while delimiting the constituencies, the Collector has constituted 20 electorate divisions i.e. one each qua each Taluka and consequently the number of seats are increased from 12 to 20, which shall be over and above the other members of the Managing Committee of the Society as provided under the bye-law No.16. 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned communication/decision/order dated 31.12.2014 delimiting the constituencies and increasing the seats from 12 to 20 of constituting 20 different electorate divisions i.e. constituting one electorate division per taluka (as there are 20 taluka) the petitioner Union/Society has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid reliefs. 3.0 Shri Harin P. Raval, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Shri P.S. Champaneri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Society has vehemently submitted that impugned communication/decision dated 31.12.2014 in purported exercise of powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 delimiting the constituencies and increasing the number of seats from 12 to 20 is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 1982. 3.1 Shri Harin P. Raval, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned decision by which the number of seats of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society has been increased from 12 to 20 is just contrary to the provisions of subsection (1A) of Section 74 of the Act. 3.1 Shri Harin P. Raval, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned decision by which the number of seats of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society has been increased from 12 to 20 is just contrary to the provisions of subsection (1A) of Section 74 of the Act. It is submitted that as per subsection (1A) of section 74 of the Act, the Managing Committee of the Society shall consist of such number of members as may be provided in the bye-laws but not exceeding 21 members. It is submitted that in the present case number of members in the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society shall be as per bye-law No.16. It is submitted that as per bye-law No.16.1, the Board of the Directors shall consist of in all 17 members [elected as well as nominated]and out of which 12 members shall be elected from the representatives from the member societies and out of which two seats shall be reserved for women representatives. It is submitted that by the impugned communication/decision in purported exercise of powers under Rule 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 and while delimiting the constituencies, the Collector has increased the number of seats which shall be more than as provided under the bye-laws of the petitioner Society. It is submitted that therefore the impugned decision/communication of increasing the number of seats to 20 is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and as such in breach of section 74(1A) of the Act. 3.2 It is further submitted that even otherwise the impugned decision of increasing the number of seats to 20 is just contrary to bye-law No.16 of the Society and is ex facie illegal and arbitrary and in breach of section 74(1A) of the Act. It is submitted that if the impugned decision/communication dated 31.12.2014 increasing the number of seats to 20 is permitted to be operated, in that case, including the nominated members and two seats reserved for women, the total number of members in the Managing Committee would exceed 21 which would be contrary to Section 74(1A) of the Act. It is submitted that as per Section 74(1A) of the Act, the Managing Committee of the Society shall not exceed 21 members. It is submitted that as per Section 74(1A) of the Act, the Managing Committee of the Society shall not exceed 21 members. 3.3 It is further submitted by Shri Raval, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Society that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 74 of the Act, two seats are required to be reserved for women candidates. It is submitted that the Collector, Anand while exercising the powers of delimitation has not bothered to provide for reservation of two seats of women out of total number of seats. It is submitted that therefore even the order of delimitation of the constituencies in exercise of the powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 is ex facie illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Raval, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by impugned communication/order dated 31.12.2014 and while exercising the powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 and in dividing the electorate divisions into 20 different electorate divisions, the Collector, Anand has considered one electorate division/one seat for each taluka of the operation of the petitioner Society, which is not permissible. It is submitted that neither under the Act nor under the Rules, 1982, there is any provision for the division of electorate/providing for seat qua each taluka. It is further submitted that as such the provisions of the Act provides the total number of seats including reserved seats and the marginal farmers and it further provides that the total number of constituencies shall be equal to the number of seats. Meaning thereby there shall be one constituency for one seat. It is further submitted that if the impugned decision/communication constituting 20 different electorate divisions per taluka is maintained, in that case, there shall be unequal voting rights and it does not provide equal representation to all the constituencies. It is submitted that in the present case and as per the delimitation of the constituencies/division of electorate, Kumred Division would have 42 affiliated member cooperative societies; Anklav Division would have 33 affiliated member cooperative societies; Sojitra Division would have 26 affiliated member cooperative societies and Kapadvanj Division would have 138 affiliated member cooperative societies. It is submitted that similar would be with respect to other divisions constituted. It is submitted that similar would be with respect to other divisions constituted. It is submitted that therefore there shall be a gross disproportion of the representation, ranging from 26 to 138. It is submitted that division of votes must be done in such a way that principle of one man one vote is not violated, more particularly in view of the decision in the case of Rameshchandra Ramanbhai Patel and Another v. Collector, Kheda and Others reported in 1979(20) GLR 191. It is submitted that therefore also the impugned communication dated 31.12.2014 of delimitation of the constituencies cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.5 It is further submitted by Shri Raval, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Society that even otherwise the impugned decision of the Collector, Anand in purported exercise of powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 increasing the number of seats of the members of the Managing Committee is wholly without jurisdiction and authority under the law. It is submitted that while exercising the powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982, the Collector has no jurisdiction and/or authority to increase the number of seats of the Managing Committee of the Society and that too contrary to the bye-laws of the Society. It is further submitted that even while passing the impugned order/communication, the Collector, Anand has misinterpreted the provisions of Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982. It is submitted that as such Rule 3A(8) provides that number of constituencies shall be equal to the total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under subsection (1) of Section 74B of the Act. It is submitted that it does not provide that the number of seats shall be equal to the total number of constituencies. It is submitted that vide impugned communication and dividing the constituencies/electorate division into 20, the Collector, Anand has provided/increased the number of seats making it equal to the number of constituencies. It is submitted that instead of making number of constituencies equal to the total number of seats, the Collector has provided the number of seats and/or increased the number of seats making it equal to the number of constituencies, which is absolutely on misinterpretation and/or misreading of sub-Rule (8) of Rule 3A of the Rules, 1982. It is submitted that instead of making number of constituencies equal to the total number of seats, the Collector has provided the number of seats and/or increased the number of seats making it equal to the number of constituencies, which is absolutely on misinterpretation and/or misreading of sub-Rule (8) of Rule 3A of the Rules, 1982. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application and grant the reliefs as prayed for. 4.0 Present petition is opposed by Shri P.K. Jani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents. He has vehemently submitted that the impugned decision is absolutely in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 1982, more particularly Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9). 4.1 It is submitted by Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General that as such the impugned decision of delimitation of the constituencies and the division of electorate is absolutely within the rights conferred upon the Collector under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 1982. 4.2 It is submitted that as such vide communication dated 06.07.2011, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gandhinagar communicated to all the District Registrars to hold the election of the specified cooperative societies in view of the provisions of the Rules, 1982 more particularly Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 and to initiate appropriate procedure of delimitation of the constituencies talukawise, in the cases where the area of operation of the Society is in more than one village. It is further submitted that as such all the specified societies in the State including the petitioner Society/Union were given opportunities to delimit the constituencies and/or amend their bye-laws more particularly the bye-law with respect to the delimitation of the constituencies accordingly i.e. talukawise. However the petitioner Society refused to amend their bye-laws. It is submitted that thereafter the Cooperative Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gandhinagar vide communication dated 15.05.2012 communicated to all the Collectors to hold the election in view of Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982. However the petitioner Society refused to amend their bye-laws. It is submitted that thereafter the Cooperative Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gandhinagar vide communication dated 15.05.2012 communicated to all the Collectors to hold the election in view of Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982. It is submitted that in case of the petitioner Society, on 07.05.2011, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies had communicated to the Chairman/Managing Directors, to initiate the procedure and hold election in view of Rule 3A(8) of the Rules, 1982 and to make necessary amendment in the respective bye-laws and to submit the proposal in view of Section 13 of the Act and the Rule 6 of the Rules, 1982. It is submitted that on 02.09.2011 the Managing Director of the petitioner Union had communicated that at present it is not required to amend the bye-laws looking to the existing bye-laws which was made after considering the necessary provisions of the Rules, 1982. 4.3 It is submitted by Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General that therefore when the petitioner Society failed to amend their bye-laws, more particularly the bye-law with regard to delimitation of the constituencies and provide number of seats as per talukawise, the Collector by impugned decision has rightly delimited the constituencies and consequently bifurcated the electorate divisions and consequently has rightly increased the number of seats talukawise, in exercise of powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982. 4.4 It is further submitted by Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents that as such the powers conferred upon the Collector under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 for delimitation of the constituencies has been approved and/or confirmed and/or recognised by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Narendrabhai Mahijibhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. rendered in Special Civil Application No.12067/2012 and other allied Special Civil Applications. It is submitted by Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General that as such the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Narendrabhai Mahijibhai Patel & Ors. (Supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision dated 19.11.2014 in Civil Appeal No.10392/2014 and other allied appeals. It is submitted by Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General that as such the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Narendrabhai Mahijibhai Patel & Ors. (Supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision dated 19.11.2014 in Civil Appeal No.10392/2014 and other allied appeals. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 19.11.2014 in Civil Appeal No.10392/2014 has specifically directed to hold the election to the specified society as per sub-Rules (8) & (9) of Rule 3A of the Rules, 1982 as are applicable to them under the Act after the delimitation of constituencies of such societies are made by Collector under sub-Rule (9) of Rule 3A of the Rules, 1982. It is submitted that therefore the impugned decision of the Collector of delimitation of the constituencies in exercise of the powers conferred under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 is absolutely as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4.5 It is further submitted by Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General that as such in the case of Vadodara District Milk Producers' Union Ltd., the bye-laws of the said Union provided 15 seats, however the Collector, Vadodara in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982, vide order dated 30.06.2012 declared 13 constituencies as per 13 talukas and the same was challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.12067/2012 and in the said Special Civil Application even the communication dated 06.07.2011 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Gujarat was also challenged and vide judgment and order dated 04.07.2013, the Full Bench of this Court had confirmed the order passed by the Collector, Vadodara and the said judgment and order passed by the Full Bench of this Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2014. It is submitted therefore that as such the decision of the Collector, Vadodara dated 30.06.2012 providing 13 constituencies as per 13 taluka-wise and despite the bye-laws of the said Union provided 15 seats in the Managing Committee of the said Union has been approved by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Narendrabhai Mahijibhai Patel & Ors. (Supra) and the said decision of the Full Bench of this Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (Supra) and the said decision of the Full Bench of this Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is requested to confirm and/or approve the impugned decision of the Collector, Anand. 4.6 It is further submitted by Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned decision of the Collector, Anand of delimitation of the constituencies and division of electorate into 20 seats considering the operation of the petitioner Union into 20 different talukas is absolutely just and proper. It is submitted that as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Co.Op. Purchase and Sales Union v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2002 (2) GLH 773 , the structure of the cooperative societies from State level down to taluka level is based on the revenue areas. It is submitted that it is further observed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision that a District Taluka Cooperative Societies is required to have its membership within District and taluka and the elections to the societies, federal or otherwise are required to be conducted by the District Collector on the basis of the revenue areas of the taluka or the district concerned. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision has negatived the contention on behalf of the petitioner of that petition that the revenue area of the taluka or district has no relationship with the holding of elections to cooperative societies of district or taluka level. 4.7 It is further submitted by Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General that even the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khanodar (Old) Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2012 (1) GLH 245 has specifically observed and held that there has to be one seat for one constituency and that total number of seats including reserved seats and marginal farmers should be equal to the total number of constituencies. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid decision the Division Bench has also noted that as per the statutory provisions, the requirement is to have one seat as per the revenue society for the taluka. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid decision the Division Bench has also noted that as per the statutory provisions, the requirement is to have one seat as per the revenue society for the taluka. 4.8 It is submitted that in the present case it has been found that the area of operation of the petitioner Union is in 20 talukas, to give representation to the members of the society/Union talukawise, when the Collector, Anand has delimited the constituencies and has bifurcated/constituted the electorate divisions into 20 divisions, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or arbitrary and/or without authority under the law. 4.9 Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application and confirm the impugned decision of the Collector, Anand of delimitation of the constituencies and bifurcation of electorate divisions into 20 divisions/constituencies considering the number of talukas. 5.0 Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties and considering the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the following questions/issues arise for consideration of this Court. 1. While exercising the powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1982 and while delimiting the constituencies, whether the Collector would have any jurisdiction and/or authority to increase the number of seats of the Managing Committee of the Society/Union/specified society and that too dehors the number of seats provided under the bye-laws of the society? 2. Whether the Collector, Anand is justified in bifurcating the electorate divisions with constituencies and/or providing number of constituencies taluka-wise i.e. one constituency/one seat per taluka? 3. Whether the Collector has jurisdiction and/or authority to increase the number of seats of the Managing Committee of the specified society beyond the number of seats provided under the bye-laws of the concerned specified society and that too contrary to subsection (1A) of Section 74 of the Act? 3. Whether the Collector has jurisdiction and/or authority to increase the number of seats of the Managing Committee of the specified society beyond the number of seats provided under the bye-laws of the concerned specified society and that too contrary to subsection (1A) of Section 74 of the Act? 5.1 While considering the aforesaid questions/issues and while appreciating the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, 1982 are required to be referred to, which are as under: 2(2) "bye-laws" means bye-laws registered under this Act and for the time being in force, and included registered amendments of such bye-laws;" 2(5) "committee" means the Managing Committee or other governing body of a society to which the direction and control of the management of the affairs of a society is entrusted to;" 2(9) "federal society" which should not have less than five of its members which are themselves societies. 2(14) "officer" means a person elected or appointed by a society to any office of such society according to its bye-laws; and includes a chairman, vice-chairman, president, vice-president, managing director, manager, secretary, treasurer, member of the committee, and any other person elected or appointed under this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, to give directions in regard to the business of such society" 74. Committee, its powers and functions.[(1)] The management of every society shall vest in a committee, constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and bye laws, which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed on it respectively by this Act, the rules and the bye laws: [Provided that a Committee of a society falling in any of the categories mentioned in subsection (1) of Section 74C shall not be so constituted as to require a certain part or number, of its members to periodically retire by rotation and any bye-law of such society containing such provision shall with effect on and from the commencement of Section 2 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1981 (6 of 1981) cease to be in force.] [(1A) Except as otherwise provided herein, the Managing Committee of a society shall consist of such number of members as may be provided in the bye-laws but not exceeding twenty-one members. (1B)(i) There shall be reserved one seat for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and two seats for Women in the managing committee of every society consisting of individuals as members and having members from such class or category of persons. (ii) One seat may be reserved for the persons who are small farmers and marginal farmers. Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1982 Rule 2(b) "constituency" means an electoral division, if any, as specified in the bye-laws of the specified society; But the pertinent aspect is that earlier society was not defined under Rule 2 but by amendment of 1987 in the Rules, Society has been defined as per section 2(ia) which reads as under: (ia) "Society" means a society specified under subsection (1) of section 74C 3A. Delimitation of constituencies for purpose of election.(1) In every society where there are more than one constituencies, the Secretary or where there is no post of Secretary, the Chief Executive Officer of every such society shall, in the year in which election to the Committee is scheduled to be held, prepare a provisional list of the constituencies. (2) Such list shall describe the limits of each constituency. A copy of the provisional list shall be displayed with a notice to be signed by the Secretary or where there is no post of Secretary, the Chief Executive Officer of the society on the notice board of every office or sub-office of the society. A copy of such provisional list along with the notice shall also be sent to the Registrar and to the Collector. (3) A copy of such list along with notice shall also be sent to every member of the society by registered post. (4) The notice referred to in sub-rules (2) and (3) shall clearly lay down that any objections or suggestions in respect of the provisional list may be sent by any person to the Secretary or where there is no post of Secretary to the Chief Executive Officer of the society within a period of 15 days from the date on which the provisional list is displayed on the notice board of the office of the society. (5) Any member of the society may bring to the notice of the society any omission or error in respect of the name or address or other particulars shown in the provisional list. (5) Any member of the society may bring to the notice of the society any omission or error in respect of the name or address or other particulars shown in the provisional list. (6) Any person raising any objection or making a suggestion shall send such objection or suggestion with grounds therefore in writing within 15 days from the date on which the provisional list is displayed on the notice board of the office of the society. (7) The society shall after considering every objection, suggestion or any error in the provisional list indicated by any member under sub-rule (5), prepare the final list. The final list shall be displayed on the notice board of the office of sub-office of the society and a copy of such final list shall be sent to the Registrar and also to the Collector. (8) Where the area of operation of a society is in more than one village, the number of constituencies shall be equal to the total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under subsection (1) of Section 74B. (9) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules and the bye-laws of the society, where the elections to the members of any Committee are scheduled to be held before the ending of the accounting year of the society, the delimitation of the constituencies shall be made by the Collector prior to the publication of the list of voters." As per subsection (1A) of Section 74 of the Act except as otherwise provided in the Act, the Managing Committee of a society shall consist of such number of members as may be provided in the bye-laws, but not exceeding 21 members. As per subsection (1b)(i) of Section 74 of the Act, there shall be reserved one seat for the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes and two seats for women in the Managing Committee of every society consist of individuals as members and having members from such class or category of persons. Thus, the Managing Committee of the Society shall consist of such number of members as may be provided in the bye-laws but not exceeding 21 members. As per Rule 3A(8) of the Rules, 1982 where the area of operation of the society is in more than one village, the number of constituencies shall be equal to total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under subsection (1) of Section 74B of the Act. As per Rule 3A(8) of the Rules, 1982 where the area of operation of the society is in more than one village, the number of constituencies shall be equal to total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under subsection (1) of Section 74B of the Act. Thus, as per Rule 3A(8) of the Rules, 1982, the number of constituency shall be equal to the number of seats and as such it does not provide that the number of seats shall be equal to the total number of constituencies. In the case of the petitioner Union, bye-law No.16 is with respect to Board of Directors which reads as under: 16. Board of Directors 16.1 The Board shall consist of the following: 16.1.1 Twelve representatives from Twelve members societies out of this two seats shall be reserved for women representatives. 16.1.2 One member from amongst the elected delegates of the individual members as per bye-law No.10.4; 16.1.3 One nominee of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies; 16.1.4 Nominee(s) of the financing agency(s) upto 2 members till the time, the Union is indebted to them i.e. one each from the Kaira District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and National Dairy Development Board; 16.1.5 One nominee of the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited; 16.1.6 Managing Director of the Union Thus, as per the bye-laws of the petitioner Union the Managing Committee/Board of Directors shall consist of total 18 members which shall include elected as well as nominated members and out of which 12 representatives to be elected from 12 member societies and out of the aforesaid 12 seats/representatives, two seats shall be reserved for women representatives. Over and above, above 12 representatives/seats, one member is to be elected from amongst the elected delegates of individual members with which we are not concerned at present in the present petition. That by impugned decision and in purported exercise of powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 and while delimiting the constituencies, the Collector, Anand has bifurcated the constituencies/electorate divisions into 20 electorate divisions/seats. As observed herein above as per the bye-laws, the number of constituencies/electorate divisions/seats is 12+1 [as per bye-law No.16.1.1 and 16.1.2] and other members would be nominated members [as per bye-law Nos.16.1.3 to 16.1.6]. As observed herein above as per the bye-laws, the number of constituencies/electorate divisions/seats is 12+1 [as per bye-law No.16.1.1 and 16.1.2] and other members would be nominated members [as per bye-law Nos.16.1.3 to 16.1.6]. Therefore, by impugned decision the Collector, Anand in purported exercise of powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 has increased the number of seats from 12+1 to 20 and that too on the basis of the number of talukas - area of operation of the petitioner Union in 20 different talukas. As per subsection (1A) of Section 74 of the Act, the Managing Committee of a Society shall consist of such number of members as may be provided in the bye-laws but not exceeding 21 members. Therefore, as such the Collector and more particularly in purported exercise of powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 has no jurisdiction and/or authority to increase the number of seats/members of a Managing Committee of the Society. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State is unable to point out any provisions under the Act and/or Rules by which the Collector is authorised to increase the number of seats/members of a Managing Committee of the Society dehors the bye-laws. As per sub-Rule (8) of Rule 3A of the Rules, 1982 where the area of the operation of the society is in more than one village, the number of constituencies shall be equal to the total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under sub-Section (1) of Section 74B of the Act. Therefore, the number of constituencies shall be equal to the total number of seats as provided under the bye-laws of the Society. It does not provide that the total number of seats shall be equal to the number of constituencies. Under the circumstances, as such the impugned decision of the Collector, Anand increasing the number of seats/number of members to 20 against the number of members provided in the bye-laws (Para 16.1) is absolutely illegal and without authority under the law and contrary to section 74(1A) read with Rules 3A(8) of the Rules, 1982. 5.2 Even otherwise the impugned decision of the Collector, Anand bifurcating the electorate divisions into 20 and increasing the number of seats to 20 would also be contrary to section 74(1A) of the Act. 5.2 Even otherwise the impugned decision of the Collector, Anand bifurcating the electorate divisions into 20 and increasing the number of seats to 20 would also be contrary to section 74(1A) of the Act. As per Section 74(1A) of the Act, the Managing Committee of the Society shall not exceed 21 members. By impugned decision the Collector has increased the number of members/seats to 20 and if one member to be elected from amongst the elected delegates of the individual members and the other nominated members are included, in that case, the number of members in the Board of Directors shall be more than 21 members, which would be contrary to subsection (1A) of Section 74 of the Act. It cannot be disputed and it is not disputed that as per subsection (1A) of Section 74 of the Act, the Board of Directors shall not exceed 21 members. Under the circumstances also, the impugned decision to increase the number of constituencies/electorate divisions/seats to 20 cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.3 Now, so far as providing number of seats/increasing the number of seats/electorate divisions per taluka and/or talukawise and in the present case as the area of operation of the petitioner Society is in 20 talukas, increasing the number of seats to 20 i.e. one seat per one taluka is concerned, as such Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State is unable to point out any statutory provisions providing the seats talukawise. If the submissions on behalf of the State to have the number of seats as per number of talukas is accepted, in that case there are all possibilities of gross disproportion of representation. In a given case it may happen that there are less number of member societies/the voters in a particular taluka and in some other talukas the total number of affiliated member societies are more and therefore, if the number of seats are provided as per taluka and consequently the number of constituencies are delimited talukawise, in that case, there shall be disproportionate representation and the principle of One Man One Vote would be violated. It cannot be disputed that the division of votes/constituencies must be done in such a way that principle of One Man One Vote is not violated and that there shall be equal representation. It cannot be disputed that the division of votes/constituencies must be done in such a way that principle of One Man One Vote is not violated and that there shall be equal representation. It is to be noted that in the present case, by the impugned decision the Collector has delimited the constituencies and has increased the number of seats into 20 as under: Sr. No. Name of Voters' Constituency Strength of Voter Societies Voters' list No. No. of members to be elected 1 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Anand Taluka 70 01 2 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Umreth Taluka 42 01 3 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Borsad Taluka 73 01 4 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Anklav Taluka 33 01 5 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Petlad Taluka 58 01 6 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Sojitra Taluka 26 01 7 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Khambhat Taluka 59 01 8 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Tarapur Taluka 37 01 9 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Matar Taluka 41 01 10 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Kheda Taluka 37 01 11 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Mahemdabad Taluka 78 01 12 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Vaso Taluka 21 01 13 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Nadiad Taluka 54 01 14 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Mahudha Taluka 38 01 15 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Kathlal Taluka 90 01 16 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Kapadvanj Taluka 138 01 17 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Thasra Taluka 79 01 18 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Galteshwar Taluka 37 01 19 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Balasinor Taluka 74 01 20 Organized Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies of Virpur Taluka 91 01 Total Sum 1176 20 From the aforesaid it will be very clear that the number of voters/affiliated member cooperative societies will be ranging from 26 to 138. In one constituency there shall be 26 affiliated societies who will elect one member/representative and at the same time one another constituency - constituency No.16 shall consist of 138 affiliated member societies who shall also elect one representative. In one constituency there shall be 26 affiliated societies who will elect one member/representative and at the same time one another constituency - constituency No.16 shall consist of 138 affiliated member societies who shall also elect one representative. Therefore, it would breach the principle of One Man One Vote rule and it will create inequality amongst the members and also loft sided distribution of votes inasmuch as one constituency will represent 26 societies, whereas the other constituencies will represent 138 societies. Therefore also, the impugned decision of delimitation of the constituencies and bifurcating the electorate divisions into 20 and consequently increasing the number of seats to 20, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.4 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Co.op. Purchase and Sales Union (Supra) and in the case of Khanodar (Old) Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. and Ors. (Supra) by Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents in support of their contentions/submissions that delimiting the constituency/providing number of seats talukawise is permissible, is concerned, on considering the aforesaid two decisions and the controversy raised in the aforesaid two decisions, we are of the opinion that aforesaid two decisions shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall be of any assistance to the State in support of their above submissions. On considering the aforesaid two decisions as a whole and the controversy/issues involved in the aforesaid two decisions, none of the decisions apply to the facts of the case on hand. In the aforesaid two decisions, there was no controversy/issue and/or lis between the parties whether there shall be number of seats talukawise and/or the number of seats can be increased beyond the number of seats provided in the bye-laws. In the case of Siddhpur Taluka Co.op. In the aforesaid two decisions, there was no controversy/issue and/or lis between the parties whether there shall be number of seats talukawise and/or the number of seats can be increased beyond the number of seats provided in the bye-laws. In the case of Siddhpur Taluka Co.op. Purchase and Sales Union (Supra), the controversy was that a member society who was beyond the area of operation of the society and in another taluka which did not include the area of operation of the society/union insisted that despite they are in another taluka more particularly not within the taluka of area of operation of the society, they will have a right to participate in election, which came to be negatived by the Division Bench of this Court and to that in para 15 the Division Bench has observed and held as under: "15. Having thus briefly surveyed the scheme of the Act on the provisions of the Act and the Rules mentioned above, what we discover is that the structure of the cooperative societies from State level down to Taluka level is based on the revenue areas. A District and Taluka cooperative society is required to have its membership within the District and Taluka. Elections to societies, federal or otherwise, are required to be conducted by the District Collector on the basis of the revenue areas of Taluka or District concerned. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that revenue area of Taluka or District has no relationship with the holding of elections to cooperative society of District or Taluka level. It is true that in the Gujarat Act, there are no parallel provisions as to be found in Section 18C of the Maharashtra Act to take care of the change in structure of cooperative societies in the event of change of area of Taluka or District. But for that reason alone, it cannot be held that under the Gujarat Act and the Rules framed thereunder, regardless of the change of the area of Taluka or District and without amending its bye-laws, a cooperative society of primary level can send its members for vote or election to a federal society at Taluka level when such societies do not fall within the revenue area of that Taluka. In the absence of a provision analogous to Section 18C of the Maharashtra Act, to enable its members to exercise right of vote and contest from primary societies to federal society, it is incumbent on the society to amend its bye-laws to restrict its election to the area of Taluka or District in accordance with Section 13 of the Act. The Registrar can also invoke its authority for effecting corresponding change in the bye-laws under Section 14 of the Act to restrict election to members within the Taluka and District. There is great force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the right of a member to vote or contest as member of a primary society for election to federal society is to be regulated by the concerned bye-laws of the federal society and if the bye-laws restrict the membership to affiliated societies which fall within the Taluka, societies which fall outside the Taluka cannot claim right of vote and contest through their members or delegates. In this respect bye-law no. 7(1) of Siddhpur Taluka Federal Cooperative Society and Patan Taluka Federal Cooperative Society are required to be seen, the copies of which were passed on to us in the course of hearing bye-law No. 7(1) in both the Taluka level federal societies at Patan and Siddhpur prescribe eligibility qualification for a member to be an individual or society existing and operating within the Taluka concerned. If that is the position of the bye-law, any member society or individual, who is not within the Taluka, merely by continuance of its membership on the register with primary society can claim no right to participate in election to the federal societies." 5.5 Similarly, in the case of Khanodar (Old) Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. and Ors. (Supra), there was no such controversy which is raised in the present Special Civil Application. On the contrary the aforesaid decision would held and/or would be of assistance to the petitioner while considering the submissions on behalf of the petitioner that there shall be disproportionate representation and the principle of One Man One Vote would be violated. (Supra), there was no such controversy which is raised in the present Special Civil Application. On the contrary the aforesaid decision would held and/or would be of assistance to the petitioner while considering the submissions on behalf of the petitioner that there shall be disproportionate representation and the principle of One Man One Vote would be violated. At this stage it is required to be noted that though in para 17.1, the Division Bench has observed that as per the statutory provisions the requirement is to have one seat as per revenue society for the taluka, as observed herein above, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State is unable to point out any statutory provision providing that there shall be one seat as per the revenue society for the taluka. 5.6 In the case of In Re, Natural Resources Allocation, Special Reference No.1 of 2012 reported in (2012) 10 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the "law declared" has to be construed as a principle of law that emanates from a judgment, or an interpretation of a law or judgment by the Supreme Court, upon which, the case is decided. It is further observed that the " law declared" is the principle culled out on the reading of a judgment as a whole in light of the questions raised, upon which the case is decided. It is further observed that in other words, the "law declared" in a judgment, which is binding upon courts, is the ratio decidendi of the judgment. It is further observed that essence of a decision and the principle upon which the case is decided which has to be ascertained in relation to the subject matter of the decision. In para 70 to 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "70. Each case entails a different set of facts and a decision is a precedent on its own facts; not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgment can be ascribed precedental value. The essence of a decision that binds the parties to the case is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and cull out from it, the ratio decidendi. The essence of a decision that binds the parties to the case is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and cull out from it, the ratio decidendi. In the matter of applying precedents, the erudite Justice Benjamin Cardozo in "The Nature of a Judicial Process", had said that "if the judge is to pronounce it wisely, some principles of selection there must be to guide him along all potential judgments that compete for recognition" and "almost invariably his first step is to examine and compare them;" "it is a process of search, comparison and little more" and ought not to be akin to matching "the colors of the case at hand against the colors of many sample cases" because in that case "the man who had the best card index of the cases would also be the wisest judge". Warning against comparing precedents with matching colours of one case with another, he summarised the process, in case the colours don't match, in the following wise words:- "It is when the colors do not match, when the references in the index fail, when there is no decisive precedent, that the serious business of the judge begins. He must then fashion law for the litigants before him. In fashioning it for them, he will be fashioning it for others. The classic statement is Bacon's: "For many times, the things deduced to judgment may be meum and tuum, when the reason and consequence thereof may trench to point of estate. The sentence of today will make the right and wrong of tomorrow." 71. With reference to the precedential value of decisions, in State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md. Illiyas this Court observed: 12"According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates: (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment" 72. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment" 72. Recently, in Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda & Anr., this Court has observed as follows: "Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes." 73. It is also important to read a judgment as a whole keeping in mind that it is not an abstract academic discourse with universal applicability, but heavily grounded in the facts and circumstances of the case. Every part of a judgment is intricately linked to others constituting a larger whole and thus, must be read keeping the logical thread intact. In this regard, in Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., the Court made the following observations: "The ratio decidendi of a judgment has to be found out only on reading the entire judgment. In fact, the ratio of the judgment is what is set out in the judgment itself. The answer to the question would necessarily have to be read in the context of what is set out in the judgment and not in isolation. In case of any doubt as regards any observations, reasons and principles, the other part of the judgment has to be looked into. By reading a line here and there from the judgment, one cannot find out the entire ratio decidendi of the judgment." 5.7 In the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and Another v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another reported (2002) 3 SCC 496 , in para 19 to 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "19. By reading a line here and there from the judgment, one cannot find out the entire ratio decidendi of the judgment." 5.7 In the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and Another v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another reported (2002) 3 SCC 496 , in para 19 to 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statues, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, 1951 AC 737 at P. 761, Lord Mac Dermot observed: "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge." 20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., 1970 (2) All ER 294 Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech..is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537 Lord Morris said: "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case." 21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 22. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicks: "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." xxx xxx xxx "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." 5.8 Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and considering the issues raised in the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Co.Op. Purchase and Sales Union (Supra) and Khanodar (Old) Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. and Ors. (Supra) and the issues involved in the present petition, none of the two decisions shall apply to the facts of the case on hand and/or shall be of any assistance to the State. 5.9 Similarly, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Narendrabhai Mahijibhai Patel & Ors. (Supra) which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or shall not be of any assistance to the State. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Full Bench no such issue/question was involved/raised, which is involved in the present petition. The Full Bench had no occasion to deal with and decide any of the issues which are raised in the present petition. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Full Bench no such issue/question was involved/raised, which is involved in the present petition. The Full Bench had no occasion to deal with and decide any of the issues which are raised in the present petition. The controversy before the Full Bench and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with respect to the conflict between the bye-laws of the Society and the powers of the Collector for delimitation of the constituencies conferred under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982. The conclusions of the Full Bench in the aforesaid decision are in para 25, which are as under: "25. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, we find that the issues referred to us can be answered as under: (1) Rule 3A of Rules, 1982 could be applied to the societies bye-laws which provides for a single constituency because Rule 3A is essentially for delimitation of the constituencies and preparation of the voters' list. But we clarify that sub-rule(1) to sub-rule(7) would apply in case of all specified societies, whether bye-laws provide for a single constituency or more than one constituency. Sub-rule(8) would apply to all specified societies having bye-laws for single constituency only if its area of operation is in more than one village. Sub-rule(9) would apply to all specified societies where delimitation of the constituencies are required to be made by the Collector. (2) The scheme of the Rules, 1982 do permit specified societies having single constituency, provided the area of operation is limited to one village and in those circumstances, more than one seat may be provided under the bye-laws for one constituency. The members of such societies can legally be permitted to vote for more than one seat. (3) The Collector has the power to pass an order for delimitation of the constituency, even in absence of any proceedings undertaken in accordance with section 14 of the Act. (4) The delimitation of constituency under Rule 3A of the Rules can also be territory-wise. The delimitation of the constituencies can be based upon the objects and activities of the societies for the classes of individual members since each electorate is to represent the respective members of a particular area or a particular class, as the case may be." The aforesaid has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision dated 19.11.2014 in Civil Appeal No.10392/2014. 5.10 Thus, there was no controversy/issue before the Full Bench and even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the issues raised in the present petition i.e. whether the Collector would have any jurisdiction and/or authority to increase the number of seats/number of members in the Managing Committee/Board of Directors while exercising the power under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 and that too beyond the number of seats/members provided in the bye-laws and that too beyond the number of members as provided/mentioned in Section 74(1A) of the Act. As observed herein-above every decision/judgment is required to be considered considering the lis between the parties. 5.11 Similarly, the submission of Shri Jani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that in the case of Vadodara District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. i.e. Special Civil Application No.12067/2012, the Collector, Vadadara in exercise of powers under Rule 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 delimited the constituencies and bifurcated the electorate divisions and constituted 13 constituencies as per 13 talukas, though the bye-laws of the said Union provided 15 seats and the same was challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.10267/2012 and the Full Bench of this Court vide his judgment and order dated 04.07.2013 has dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Application and confirmed the order passed by the Collector, Vadodara and therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that in the aforesaid Special Civil Application neither any submissions were made on the aforesaid nor there is any discussion and/or finding recorded by the Full Bench on the aforesaid issue. In the case of Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2011) 9 SCC 354 , it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a point does not fall for decision of a Court but incidentally arises for its consideration and is not necessary to be decided for the ultimate decision of the case, such a decision does not form a part of the ratio of the case but the same is treated as a decision passed sub silentio. It is further observed that a point in respect of which no argument was advanced and no citation of authority was made is not binding and would not be followed. It is further observed that decisions which are sub silentio and without argument, are of no moment. It is further observed that one of the chief reasons behind the doctrine of precedent is that once a matter is fully argued and decided the same should not be reopened and mere casual expression carry no weight. As observed herein above while deciding the Special Civil Application No.12067/2012 along with other group of petitions and while considering the powers of the Collector under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982, the Full Bench had no occasion and in fact had not decided the aforesaid issue and/or the legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector and more particularly the issues which are raised in the present Special Civil Application. As observed herein above neither there were any arguments nor even there is any finding by the Full Bench on the aforesaid issues, while deciding the aforesaid Special Civil Application along with the other group of petitions. 6.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is held that while passing the impugned decision/communication dated 31.12.2014 and while exercising the powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 read with Sections 145A and 145B(a) of the Act and while delimiting the constituencies increasing the number of seats/members in the Board of Directors of the petitioner Union to 20, the Collector has acted beyond the powers conferred under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 and the said action is wholly without jurisdiction. It is also further held that impugned decision of increasing the number of seats/number of members in the Board of Directors to 20 would violate Section 74(1A) of the Act, as the maximum number of members in the Board of Directors shall be 21. Consequently, the impugned decision dated 31.12.2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned decision dated 31.12.2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned decision/communication/order dated 31.12.2014 of delimitation of the constituencies to 20 talukawise is also required to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside on the ground that it would create unequal representation and would breach and/or violate principle of One Man One Vote and/or equal representation. Consequently, the present petition succeeds. The impugned decision/communication/order dated 31.12.2014 of the Collector, Anand (Annexure-C to the petition) is hereby quashed and set aside. It will be open for the Collector, Anand to exercise the powers under Rules 3A(8) and 3A(9) of the Rules, 1982 and delimit the constituencies in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules, 1982 and the bye-laws more particularly Section 74(1A) of the Act, Rule 3A of the Rules, 1982 and bye-law No.16 of the petitioner Union and the observations made herein-above. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 6 weeks from today so that election of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Union can be held as early as possible, as the term of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Union had already expired as far as back on 27.08.2012. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Direct service is permitted. Petition Succeeds.